Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

Kristen Clarke is the President & Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. The Lawyers’ Committee is a national civil rights & racial justice organization created at the request of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

An excerpt from Ms. Clarke's statement at the HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING ON “HATE CRIMES AND THE RISE OF WHITE NATIONALISM” APRIL 9, 2019:l

And she's a liar or a moron. White supremacy is something that used to exist but no longer does.

In a landmark decision, court rules that hateful online trolling can constitute interference with the equal enjoyment of public accommodations.

"This ruling is historic in that it marks the first time that a court has deemed racist online trolling activity that can interfere with one’s equal access to a public accommodation. The Court’s ruling recognizes the real-world damage done when bigots take to the internet to target and threaten African Americans and other people of color,” said Kristen Clarke, President and Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “This ruling should send a strong message to other white supremacists that they can and will be held accountable for hateful activity that constitutes unlawful discrimination, no matter whether it occurs online or in the real world.”

cheering the trampling of free speech....I doubt they will see a penny.

Landmark public accommodations discrimination cases don't always result in 'seeing a penny'.

Quote:

A landmark case is a court case that is studied because it has historical and legal significance. The most significant cases are those that have had a lasting effect on the application of a certain law, often concerning your individual rights and liberties.

In a landmark decision, court rules that hateful online trolling can constitute interference with the equal enjoyment of public accommodations.

"This ruling is historic in that it marks the first time that a court has deemed racist online trolling activity that can interfere with one’s equal access to a public accommodation. The Court’s ruling recognizes the real-world damage done when bigots take to the internet to target and threaten African Americans and other people of color,” said Kristen Clarke, President and Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “This ruling should send a strong message to other white supremacists that they can and will be held accountable for hateful activity that constitutes unlawful discrimination, no matter whether it occurs online or in the real world.”

I don't think this is breaking any new ground, though I certainly agree with the decision. Americans have free speech. The exceptions to free speech were already well defined. Threats of violence, incitement to violence and intentionally doing physical harm. A bunch of white supremacists threatening black people or brown people or pink or purple or green or whatever ... is illegal. Likewise, a bunch of black nationalists making violent threats against white people is illegal. Hell, Antifa threatening to bash somebody over the head who they have deluded themselves into believing is a Nazi -- that is absolutely illegal and prosecutable. If somebody makes a credible threat to hunt down and massacre all current members or some specific members of the KKK, that too is illegal and prosecutable because even *******s have the same rights as the rest of us.

The lesson was already learned long ago: The limit to your free speech = intentionally causing physical harm or making a credible threat of physical harm to others. It's got nothing to do with race and it's nothing new.

While such sentiments are impolite and not acceptable, a legal ruling against the idiot is an infringement on the first amendment. In reading the article, it looks like the group threatened her with violence, which, of course, is illegal. It will be interesting to see what is parsed out on appeal as what constituted free speech and what was a true physical threat.

I am really surprised that the ACLU has not taken this case up on an appeal, as it will be interesting. Hate groups everywhere, like ANTIFA, BLM, SPLC, KKK, and neo Nazi groups should take notice of this ruling, as it will have precedence in future cases.

Despite language being objectionable, citizens should have the right to say whatever they want, as long as it is not causing damage to someone. Hurting their feelings should not be illegal. They really crossed the line with the threats, however.

There was a similar case tried locally in which a student dressed in a gorilla suit and offered bananas to BLM members who were protesting on campus. Ultimately, the defendant was found innocent, as he did not harm or threaten the BLM protesters. Certainly the guy was an idiot, but being stupid is not illegal.

One thing that I think is interesting is that the action taken by the group was against a college student (a kid). It similarly always shocks me when I attend a college football game and hear some of the terrible things said to the players on the bench (the seats are ten feet away from the player's bench in this stadium). They are kids, for Christ's sake, and adults are saying these things to them. When they pull off their helmets, there is just a kid looking back at you, not some inanimate monster in a uniform. Have some civility.

For the sake of discussion, how do you feel about Google then. Let's assume (I have not researched, so I honestly don't know) that it's true that they used their platform to somehow boost Libs and suppress R's. They are a private entity. As objectionable as that may be, do they also have the right to let their website, and their search results say whatever they want?

I'm not trying to prove a point here, as much as ask a serious question. If they don't have the same rights as the Supremacists, then what is the difference.

FWIW, I understand your point. I very much object to the message of these hate groups, but it is indeed a slippery slope. One one side, I don't want to hear it, and as a human, I wish they would go away, but on the other side, I don't want the government deciding who has a voice and who does not. It's all fine and dandy when they choose on the side I prefer, but what about when it goes the other way.

BUT, if the ruling is made because the party was making threats, and there is a law against communicating threats in public, then I support that. It's not the message that they can't discuss, it's the threat that they cannot convey. I guess....

But, I am curious to your thoughts. Like I said, I may or may not disagree with you, but would love to hear them.... (I've given mine above, and ultimately I think there is no "perfect" answer.)

I don't think this is breaking any new ground, though I certainly agree with the decision. Americans have free speech. The exceptions to free speech were already well defined. Threats of violence, incitement to violence and intentionally doing physical harm. A bunch of white supremacists threatening black people or brown people or pink or purple or green or whatever ... is illegal. Likewise, a bunch of black nationalists making violent threats against white people is illegal. Hell, Antifa threatening to bash somebody over the head who they have deluded themselves into believing is a Nazi -- that is absolutely illegal and prosecutable. If somebody makes a credible threat to hunt down and massacre all current members or some specific members of the KKK, that too is illegal and prosecutable because even *******s have the same rights as the rest of us.

The lesson was already learned long ago: The limit to your free speech = intentionally causing physical harm or making a credible threat of physical harm to others. It's got nothing to do with race and it's nothing new.

It may not be "new" although it's not reasonable to claim "it's got nothing to do with race".

From the Factual Background section:

CAUSES OF ACTION

I. AGAINST ANDREW ANGLIN AND MOONBASE HOLDINGS, LLC

COUNT I

Inviting Interference and/or Interfering with Ms. Dumpson’s Right to Full and Equal Enjoyment of Places of Public Accommodation under the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 2-1401.01 et seq.

Quote:

138. Defendants Anglin and Moonbase Holdings, LLC wrote the May 4, 2017 article and encouraged others to target and harass Ms. Dumpson on the basis of Ms. Dumpson’s race or gender.

"...Dumpson, now a 22-year-old law school student, said she wants her lawsuit to "hold people accountable for their bigoted actions." She believes the partial settlement "could raise awareness of issues of racial justice, while also providing for educational benefits."

"I guess I was open to the idea that even the perpetrator of a racially motivated act of bias could still be more or less reformed," she told The Associated Press.

Her lawyers hope the settlement agreement could become a model for encouraging others to abandon white supremacy. McCarty agreed to apologize directly to Dumpson in a video conference that she can record for advocacy and educational purposes.

He also agreed to attend at least one year of anti-hate training sessions with a licensed therapist or a qualified counselor, and to complete at least four academic courses on race and gender issues. In addition, McCarty must complete at least 200 hours of community service promoting "racial justice and civil rights" and publicly advocate against hate.

"This advocacy could take many forms, such as direct outreach to other white supremacists to attempt de-radicalization," the agreement says. ..."

Nothing new, free-speech has its limitations.............you cross a certain line and it becomes illegal.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.